Re: can you have interception w/o aop?
Pascal Costanza <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.aspect.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 6 Apr 2006, at 14:52, Roger Johansson wrote: >>> It seems to me that two characterizations are currently >>> typically .. > > Ok, now we're talking. > > but is those two things really addressing the same thing? > > isnt the goal based addressing the "essence" of AOP, while the > technical addresses the requirements for an _AOP Framework/Engine/ > Language_ ?? > > surely I must be able to make a mini use-case specific AOP engine/ > compiler that pointcuts via some static code instead of a DSL , > just because I might know that thats all I need in this specific > usecase. > and it would still be AOP , wouldnt it? > > so AOP as a concept can exist w/o DSL pointcut languages etc, while > a competent AOP Framework/Language cannot > > or? You are now talking about the difference between a programming style and explicit support for such a programming style. Of course, you can program in a style while using a language that doesn't explicitly support that style, for example, by doing object-oriented programming in plain C. Same for AOP, and for any other programming paradigm for that matter. (Most programming languages are Turing equivalent, right? ;) Pascal -- Pascal Costanza, mailto:[email protected], http://p-cos.net Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium __________________________________________________ AOSD Discuss mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe go to http://aosd.net Check out the AOSD.net Wiki: http://aosd.net/wiki